Chromatic v Westminster – On the Necessity of Predictable Contact for Four Citizen Children

---

⟡ SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue
Filed date: 17 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-CONT-WKJUL21
PDF Filename: 2025-07-17_SWANK_Request_ContactSchedule_WeekOf21July.pdf
1-Line Summary: Structured contact, medical safety, and legal precedent invoked to demand a trauma-informed schedule for four U.S. citizen children.

---

I. What Happened

On 17 July 2025, Polly Chromatic issued a formal request to Westminster Children’s Services for a complete weekly contact schedule covering Monday 21 July to Friday 25 July 2025. The letter outlined the medical, psychological, and legal need for consistency — a need that has repeatedly been neglected. The request also raised concerns regarding hostile supervision practices, medical triggers, and the trauma-inducing instability currently imposed on the children.

---

II. What the Complaint Establishes

This request formalises three key principles:

1. Contact must be consistent, calm, and staggered — not stacked chaotically within a single day.

2. The local authority’s erratic scheduling and hostility have medical and emotional consequences.

3. Contact must accommodate international relatives (mother in the UK, father in Turks and Caicos, grandmother in the U.S.) and reflect the children’s medical and emotional needs.

The proposal requests:

• Monday, Wednesday, Friday: in-person contact with Polly Chromatic near the foster home

• Tuesday or Thursday: video contact with maternal grandmother (U.S.)

• Tuesday or Thursday: WhatsApp contact with the father (Turks & Caicos)

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because these are four U.S. citizen children placed under local authority control with:

• no routine,

• no safeguarding-informed supervision, and

• a contact environment defined by institutional punitiveness rather than child welfare.

Because the hostile tone of Westminster social workers continues to exacerbate medical conditions, restrict emotional bonding, and violate every known standard of trauma-informed practice — while presenting itself as lawful oversight.

Because, as Bromley’s Family Law and the European Convention on Human Rights make abundantly clear:

“It is in the child’s best interests that there be consistency in care and predictability in relationships” (Bromley, Ch. 17)
“Any interference with family life must be in accordance with the law, pursue a legitimate aim, and be necessary in a democratic society.” (ECHR, Art. 8)

---

IV. Violations

• Violation of Article 8 ECHR – Disruption of family life without lawful justification

• Medical negligence – Repeated exposure of Polly to asthma-triggering conditions

• Procedural cruelty – Use of hostile contact supervision to suppress emotional expression

• Child welfare breach – Imposition of inconsistency, uncertainty, and trauma on four minor children

• Parental marginalisation – Ignoring lived disability and established authority of the mother

---

V. SWANK’s Position

This is not a casual request — it is a welfare demand backed by medical records, academic precedent, and international family structure. Any delay or refusal to establish a predictable and respectful contact schedule will be regarded as negligence, discrimination, and wilful obstruction of child welfare rights. Kirsty Hornal’s continued supervision is both emotionally damaging and medically unsafe. Her “professional” demeanour cloaks a sustained campaign of hostility by design.

Polly Chromatic remains fully committed to lawful communication, trauma-informed parenting, and structured advocacy — even while Westminster persists in behaving as if rights are optional.

---

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach. We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence. This is not a blog. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved. Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.